Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tajinder Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 September, 2008
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia
Civil Writ Petition No.8121 of 2008 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.
Civil Writ Petition No.8121 of 2008
Date of Decision: 18.9.2008
Tajinder Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and Others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Present: Mr. R.S.Budhwar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate
General, Punjab, for the respondents.
Hemant Gupta, J.
The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the Collector, Kurukshetra, on 30.1.2007 and order passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt. on 14.11.2007 under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), in respect of sale deed dated 31.8.2005.
Learned Collector, Kurukshetra, has found that the land, subject matter of sale, is in front of Royal Resort. In the north, there is a dairy and open house of factory and that the land in question is a valuable one. It was found that the land was conveyed as an agricultural land, whereas the same is residential property. Thus, relying Civil Writ Petition No.8121 of 2008 2 upon Collector's rate, the Collector assessed the market value of the land and found that the instrument of sale is deficient of stamp duty.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the authorities under the Act have assessed the market value on the basis of Collector's rate. It is contended that the Collector's rate cannot be taken into consideration as such rates have no statutory support. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Chamkaur Singh and another v. The State of Punjab and another, AIR 1991 Punjab and Haryana 26.
In the aforesaid case, the guidelines issued by the Collector, Patiala on 4.8.1988, laying down minimum price of different kinds of land for the purposes of registration came up for consideration. It was held that these guidelines clearly take away the jurisdiction of the Sub Registrar to reach any quasi judicial decision with regard to the valuation of the transfer of a particular property falling within his jurisdiction. It was so held after holding that the Sub Registrar performs quasi judicial functions in determining or estimating the price of the properties. It was, thus, held that the guidelines could not be issued under Section 47-A of the Act . It was, thus, held as under:-
"We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that these so-called guidelines could neither be issued under S.47-A of the Stamp Act nor are these in consonance with the same, rather these just run counter to the language and intendment of the said provision. We are further of the opinion that no guidelines can possibly be issued or laid down for controlling the Civil Writ Petition No.8121 of 2008 3 quasi-judicial decision of a particular functionary or authority under a particular statute."
It may be noticed that the Court noticed the fact that there is no provisions in the Registration Act, 1908 under which the Collector can issue the order or the directions of the type as contained in the guidelines, nor the Registrar has the power to determine the market value of the property sold in order to assess the changeability of the stamp duty on the same. Prior to incorporation of Section 47-A of the Act, there was no provision in the Act to call upon the Collector or the Registering Officer to make an independent inquiry about the property conveyed. The said judgment was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported as State of Punjab and others v. Mohabir Singh and others, (1996)1 Supreme Court Cases 609, wherein it was held as under:-
"6. It would thus be seen that the aforesaid guidelines would inhibit the Registering Authority to exercise his quasi-judicial satisfaction of the true value of the property or consideration reflected in the instrument presented before him for registration. The statutory language clearly indicates that as and when such an instrument is presented for registration, the Sub-Registrar is required to satisfy himself, before registering the document, whether the true price is reflected in the instrument as it prevails in the locality. If he is so satisfied, he registers the document. If he is not satisfied that the market value Civil Writ Petition No.8121 of 2008 4 or the consideration has been truly set forth in the instrument, subject to his making reference under sub-section (1) of Section 47-A, he registers the document. Thereafter, he should make a reference to the Collector for action under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 47-A. Accordingly, we hold that the offending instructions are not consistent with sub-
section (1) of Section 47-A. It would, therefore, be open to the State Government to revise its guidelines and issue proper directions consistent with the law." In Haryana, the provisions of Section 47-A of the Act are substantially the same as they were inserted in Punjab, vide Act No. 21 of 1982. Therefore, the principles of law enunciated in the aforesaid judgment, are applicable with full force to the cases arising out of the registration of the instruments in Haryana as well. It may be noticed that in Punjab substantial amendments have been made in Section 47-A of the Act as also in the Rules framed thereunder.
In the present case, neither the Collector nor the Commissioner has adverted to any independent evidence to return a finding in respect of the market value of the land. The basis of the order is Collector's rate of the land. Neither there is any reference to any sale instance in the neighbourhood nor any other evidence, which could reflect the price of the land as Rs.1,200/- per square yard. The Collector's rate, which is without any statutory support, cannot be given effect to in view of the judgments referred to above. Thus, the impugned orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner, suffer Civil Writ Petition No.8121 of 2008 5 from patent illegality and material irregularity.
Consequently, the impugned orders are set aside. However, liberty is granted to the Collector to assess the market value of the land in accordance with the principle of law enunciated in the above said judgments.
Writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
(Hemant Gupta) Judge (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge September 18, 2008 "DK"